Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill, as we indicated, is the Pension Protection Act of 2006; but it is much more than that. Within the bill also are tax items, trade items, charitable provisions. One of the reasons I am pleased to bring this to the floor is that it is in essence the combination of more than 5 months of working on a very important area of public law that affects tens of millions of Americans. It is about the agreement workers have with their employers as to what they are going to be able to earn, not for the time they are working but for the time they are retired. Our current pension system is, frankly, broken. It moved rapidly into a known broken situation, and we have responded, not as quickly as perhaps we would have liked, but I think we have responded in a way that, as we discussed, this bill I think you will find there is, at least there was on the conference committee and there should be in this House, broad bipartisan support. For example, on this side of the aisle, I could say I hold a letter from the General Motors Corporation endorsing the changes we are making in pension law. And someone would say, aha. But then I would pick up a letter and say, I hold a letter from the United Auto Workers who are supportive of this pension change. And I could do that for industry after industry showing that you not only have the corporate structure in support but you have the workers in support. This is a bill that makes fundamental changes in transparency, in payment arrangements, which means the promise made from employers to employees and employees to employers has a greater chance than a long, long time of being honored. It is important legislation. The Ways and Means Committee will spend some time on the text, trade, and charitable provisions, but I want to say that I am very proud of the product that has been produced. It will move off this floor, it will move through the Senate, and it will be signed by the President. And the time line in doing that will save many employees from what would have been a certain failure to have pensions if we did not act before we adjourned for our summer district work period. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is times like these that you have to resist the temptation of saying, okay, let's just go home and not pass this bill. But the gentleman from Washington, from Seattle, perhaps wouldn't be able to get back if he were flying Northwest Airlines, and so the fervor of his speech not to act would in fact have to bump into reality sooner than I think he might like. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remainder of the time to be controlled by the gentleman of Michigan, a fellow conferee on the pension conference (Mr. Camp).

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, of necessity, this bill, H.R. 4, governing pension rules is very complex. A detailed, plain-English explanation is available from the Joint Committee on Taxation and will be a key resource in understanding the intent underlying the bill's provisions and, therefore, obviously of the legislative intent behind the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I know some people complained about having only a number of hours to read the bill, but this was just handed to me, and I am tempted to say that perhaps 30 seconds ought to be allowed, because it could have been handed anytime during the debate. But I know you were very busy over there, so you were only able to get it to us at the close of debate. We appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have in high regard those Members who focus on issues which they are concerned about in the pension bill, and I know that there are a number of sections that people could focus on in terms of their concern about the bill. And I know it is absolutely, totally a coincidence that one Member on this side of the aisle spoke against the bill. Yet, as I am going through this particular motion to recommit, page after page after page refers to, you got it, the airline provisions. So I am quite sure on the basis of wanting to go through a 1,000-page bill to create a motion to recommit, that the fact that the one area that appears to be a bit sensitive on this side of the aisle is what the motion to recommit is all about. I guess in that regard I hold in minimum high regard, on something as important as this legislation, to get it on the books as quickly as we can, that this motion to recommit is focused in a way, in my opinion, to advance political interests rather than policy interests. I guess I am just a little bit bewildered when the gentleman from Ohio, the majority leader, handed me a letter, because as a conferee I received a letter that said we want you in the areas of key concern to be supportive of what we do in this pension bill. There were two signatures on that letter. One was the majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio. The other one was the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, urging us to make sure key provisions in the pension bill are preserved, because we want to preserve those, and not the whole bill, or in fact send the Senate the whole bill because Senator Kennedy will be supportive of this bill once it is received in the Senate. The idea that members of the conference don't know what is in it and aren't supportive is absolutely and totally refuted by the signature of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Does anyone here think it is rather odd if we designed a bill to fail we would place in it what apparently the Members on the other side say is one of our really primary focuses, and that is to allow people who have worked all their lives to hang on to a little bit of what they get after death for their family? Why would you couple those two together if you wanted it to fail? The so-called extenders are 7 months overdue. They need to be extended. Why would you put a minimum wage in this structure, and extenders, if you built a bill to fail? I think it is going to be very tortured discussion on the floor, because our colleagues on the other side just can't quite get their arms around the fact that the Republicans are for a significant change in the estate tax, they are for extending the extenders, and we are for a minimum wage. All you have to do is vote ``yes.'' Now, that probably is your biggest difficulty, voting ``yes'' on a bill that is in front of you. If you vote ``yes,'' as the gentleman from Maryland said, minimum wage goes from $5.15 to $7.25. If you vote ``yes,'' you join us in encouraging the Senate. And if you want to find the graveyard for the minimum wage, I suggest you go over and visit the other body. What we have done is tried to package this to succeed in getting the minimum wage through the other body. And if we can work together, all you have to do is start by voting ``yes,'' and then it could be contagious, we could go over and get the Senate to vote ``yes,'' and we could have a minimum-wage increase to $7.25 in 3 years. We could also extend the extenders, and we could also have a very reasonable appropriate structure for allowing people to hang on to a little bit more of what they work for and accumulate over their lifetime. I know the cost of making that happen is high. It means you'd actually have to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself briefly. Gee, I know you work for the minimum wage, and I know you want a higher minimum wage, but the way the offer was packaged was such that I had to vote ``no.'' So don't blame me that you didn't get an increase in the minimum wage, because I voted ``no.'' As I said, this is going to be very difficult. All you have to do is vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself briefly. All we have to do to provide an increase in the minimum wage is to vote ``yes.'' And I wonder how that person working for a minimum wage feels when you say, I couldn't vote ``yes'' for the increase in the minimum wage because I was offended the way it was presented to us. And you need to know that the way I feel about the process in the House of Representatives is more important than providing you with an increase in the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. English.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his vote. I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was kind of stunned when my colleague from Ohio indicated that he was going to support this bill. I believe him when he wants to support it for the minimum wage. And then it struck me: he is not going to be in a gerrymandered district. He is running statewide. He is actually going to have to respond. In an environment where if he doesn't pick the position that people believe is the right one, he could lose. But if he were in a district in which he could vote virtually any way he wanted and wanted to slant the issues in ways that provided a political benefit rather than a real benefit, I just wonder. Gee, that means maybe if we had more competitive seats, we would have more folks voting for policies that actually benefit people like raising the minimum wage, because a ``yes'' vote tonight will raise the minimum wage. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a valued member of the committee, the chairman of the House subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I keep telling my friend from New York that there is a really big country west of the Hudson. It is 9 p.m. in California. The sun is shining in the United States. I understand east of the Hudson, but there is a big country west of the Hudson. I told you this was going to be a strange debate. The gentleman from California is right. He counted backward: ten, nine, eight, seven, six. We have not increased the minimum wage. It is about time we increased the minimum wage. Are you offended that we finally got it? Is that what you are offended about? Or is it the fact that when you were the majority for 40 years, Medicare never saw one preventative service, they never saw one wellness program, and there was no drug program? We became the majority and all of that occurred. I am now beginning to figure this out. These people are going to have to tear up these old, yellowed speeches they have been giving for decades because the Republicans get it. There is one other thing we get. It is a concept you are beginning to hear about. It is called ``multi-tasking.'' You do not really have to come with one subject. You can actually do several things at the same time. And there is a degree of synergy involved in those things. You heard the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that there are interactive aspects in this. So I am really somewhat confused. Is it that you want to keep on giving speeches that Republicans do not understand that we should raise the minimum wage, that you do not want to rewrite the speech? Or is it because on every one of those hackneyed, worn political positions, you do not have a position anymore? We are for raising the minimum wage. We agree with you. It is time to raise it. Your arguments are now: But it is not packaged correctly. It is after midnight. I would love to be doing this at 7 p.m. You know the difficulties in moving. We just passed a massive pension bill. We got it done. It is 9 o'clock. You are going to complain that you are going to vote against this because we are doing it after midnight? Is it so offensive to you that you have to stay up a couple of hours and have presented to you a package which is very difficult for you to get your hackneyed, yellowed political speeches around? Yes, we are Republicans. Are we for increasing the minimum wage? Yes. Do we want to get the extenders done before we go out because it is 7 months too late? Yes. Do we want to help people who want to hang on to a little bit of what they have built over their lifetimes? Yes. And you are going to vote ``no'' because it is put together in a way that offends you? I wonder what that person hoping for an increase in the minimum wage thinks when they are told, I wanted to help you, but I was offended in the way in which the opportunity to help you was presented to me. Who is kidding who? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like somebody is saying on this issue, I have a hostage, and if you try to force me to vote for minimum wage, I am going to kill the hostage. There is a minimum-wage increase in this legislation. The argument that somehow, and I will say it again, somehow the fact that we didn't act earlier is a sufficient rationale for you to not vote for it now, to say that we have other items in this bill and we are hiding the minimum wage with other attractive packages to Republicans, I will repeat to you, is a way we might actually be able to get it through the other body, since the other body would not allow a clean minimum wage to pass through it. And they have exhibited that a number of times. I know it is difficult for you, and I know it is going to take a period of time in terms of understanding that when we say this is a bill that contains extenders, that this is a bill that contains a reasonable and appropriate adjustment on estate taxes. The reason I say that is this is almost identical to the bill that got 43 Democrat votes just a few weeks ago. And when I say there is an increase in the minimum wage in this bill, I have heard all kinds of tortured arguments about package and process, but I can't understand for the life of me, if we are such hypocrites, and this is a sham, why you don't take us up on it and show how wrong we are by voting for a minimum-wage provision and then see what we do with it. What we are going to do with this is try to make law. This will pass this House. Join me. Let's go over to the Senate and do everything we can together to get the Senate to pass it. Or is it that if it actually happened and the President signed it, and we had an increase in the minimum wage, you would have to draw one more line through those easy arguments that are now outdated about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, because it is hard enough to believe that Democrats no longer have a monopoly on improving Medicare with quality measures and putting prescription drugs in. But don't Republicans have any shame? Coming to the floor trying to raise the minimum wage, what are we going to do? Well, the first thing you have to say is, okay, guys, we can't vote ``yes''. Why? Test us. Let's make law. It has been 10 years. Let's raise the minimum wage. I understand that we are also going to save the extenders. I understand we are going to put in a reasonable estate tax change. But what I am asking you to do, rather than to wring your hands and figure out how you are going to explain you didn't want to vote for the increase in the minimum wage because of the way it was packaged is to test us. I want a test. Let's pass this. Let's go over to the Senate. Let's try to make law.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, millions of Americans are thankful they now have prescription drugs at significant savings. I know it is difficult because another line went through one of your typical political arguments. Test us. See if we are just kidding. See if this is a sham. What I am inviting you to do is make law. I know it is a brave new world. But let's try it. Let's see if we can make law together. Your arguments have been so turned that you are explaining you are against raising the minimum wage because of the way it is being presented to you. It deserves to be clean. Okay. It's not. I am offended that I would have to vote this way. By the way, you are still at $5.15. Test us. Let's make law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I really would like to travel with some of you folks to restaurants and hotels and watch you go back and find someone who is getting the minimum wage and make that pitch to them. Because what they are going to say is, gee, you are right, I am glad you voted against increasing the minimum wage so I could get a few more bucks. I understand doing it here on the floor. I understand doing it in those expensive fund-raisers that you hold. I have a really difficult time seeing someone who says, would you just give me an increase in the minimum wage buying that argument. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you did not hear the gentleman from New York's closing statement, that we are just going to have to throw the poor folks out with it. Let me get this straight. We want to vote ``aye''. That would produce a higher minimum wage. We want to vote ``aye''. That will provide those low-income people, especially in States like Texas, with a State and local sales tax deduction. We want to vote ``aye'', so the work opportunity tax credit can continue. We want to vote ``aye'' so the welfare-to-work program will continue. But you are for those low-income folk. So you want to vote ``no'', which would deny the minimum wage, which would deny the State and local sales tax, which would deny the work opportunity tax credit, which would deny the welfare-to-work, and you are going to convince these folk that what you are doing is protecting them. Well, let me tell you, if I had a gerrymandered district like some of you folks do, I guess I could get away with it. I do not. When you look at this vote tonight, no matter how much you squirm, no matter how much you squeal, no matter how much you protest, it is very simple. An ``aye'' vote increases the minimum wage. An ``aye'' vote allows State and local sales tax to be deducted. An ``aye'' vote allows the work opportunity tax credit to continue. An ``aye'' vote allows the welfare-to-work program to continue. No matter how much you are offended, if you vote ``no'', none of those will happen. Mr. Speaker, I have said it already, I will say it again to The gentleman from New York, this is an opportunity. This is a positive gesture on my part. Join me in making sure that those low- income people you are so compassionate about but cannot support will come with me and I will support them so that your compassion and my support, in terms of a ``yes'' vote, will actually deliver them something other than rhetoric. So I would love to have you vote ``yes'' so we are both supporting them. But you go ahead, bring your compassion, I will bring the ``yes'' vote along with the majority of people here bringing a ``yes'' vote, and we will pass it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.